Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(12-31-2011, 07:40 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
I would like to go back to your admittance that BoD can avail one of sanctifying grace and justification.  The Church teaches that sanctifying grace "makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of Heaven" (Ott, FCD, p. 258.).  Both Ott and Tanquerey (BSTD, vol. II, p. 124) denote this doctrine as being de fide.

Do you deny that an unbaptized man, but who nevertheless desires it with perfect charity and who is thus justified and in sanctifying grace, has a claim to the inheritance of Heaven?

I am saying that Trent never confirms salvation to one who is unbaptized. PLEASE show me where I am wrong.


(12-31-2011, 07:40 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: If so, then you should be consistent and deny that BoD can make a man just.  But in doing that, you'll necessarily contradict Pope St. Pius V, who taught that catechumens and mortal sinners could have perfect charity, be just, have the remission of sins and not be guilty of eternal damnation.

I implore you to pay special attention to error #3: http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/...eyites.htm

The section on Thomistic Theology is also quite important.

That BOD *can* make a man Just is not in question - never was because Trent infallibly declares that to be true.  The thing you are not admitting is that per Trent or any other Council, salvation is not rewarded via BOD - why can't BOD supporters admit that when it is only obvious?

Can you not admit that were Trent to reward one who is unbaptized salvation that they would then contradict the words of Our Lord? Even Our Lord does not say one who is unbaptized goes to hell - only that unless they are baptized, that "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".

For the life of me I can hardly comprehend how folks continue to defend what TRENT DID NOT SAY.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 11:10 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Jenn, Stubborn, and whoever else,
You can't see the elephant right in front of your face.

When Trent says in one breath there is a necessity, and in the next breath clearly qualifies the necessity in its own catechism,

You need to go back and study what I already told you in regards to the catechism.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 12:17 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 05:27 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 09:46 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
Are you now arguing that a man cannot be justified without receiving the actual sacrament, viz. Penance?  Because Trent says otherwise:


Or are you arguing that there two different states of justification, one for the baptized and one for catechumens?  Please show me where the Church teaches this, if this is indeed your claim.

A man dying with perfect charity dies justified, in the state of grace and thus merits eternal life.  Even Trent states that the final cause of justification is the glory of God and eternal life (cf. Sess. VI, ch. vii: Denz. 799).  You've already admitted that an unbaptized man can be justified and in the state of grace.  That's the Catholic version of "being saved."

No, I am saying that nowhere does Trent teach that one unbaptized goes to heaven.
Nowhere does Trent teach that one who is baptized goes to heaven.

This is true. Thank you!

Reply
Stubborn, Jenn, and friends,
I am afraid my abilities to convince you of the orthodoxy of baptism of desire have come up short. I leave you with what I have said, and add my prayers for you. Please pray for me. I wish you well on the way. + PAX
Reply
Again, the Church teaches that Baptism of Desire can take away original sin and is efficacious for salvation as BOD supplys the principle effect of baptism, namely "the grace which remits sins":

"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood" 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism"
Reply
(12-31-2011, 12:33 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:40 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
I would like to go back to your admittance that BoD can avail one of sanctifying grace and justification.  The Church teaches that sanctifying grace "makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of Heaven" (Ott, FCD, p. 258.).  Both Ott and Tanquerey (BSTD, vol. II, p. 124) denote this doctrine as being de fide.

Do you deny that an unbaptized man, but who nevertheless desires it with perfect charity and who is thus justified and in sanctifying grace, has a claim to the inheritance of Heaven?

I am saying that Trent never confirms salvation to one who is unbaptized. PLEASE show me where I am wrong.


(12-31-2011, 07:40 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: If so, then you should be consistent and deny that BoD can make a man just.  But in doing that, you'll necessarily contradict Pope St. Pius V, who taught that catechumens and mortal sinners could have perfect charity, be just, have the remission of sins and not be guilty of eternal damnation.

I implore you to pay special attention to error #3: http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/...eyites.htm

The section on Thomistic Theology is also quite important.

That BOD *can* make a man Just is not in question - never was because Trent infallibly declares that to be true.  The thing you are not admitting is that per Trent or any other Council, salvation is not rewarded via BOD - why can't BOD supporters admit that when it is only obvious?

Can you not admit that were Trent to reward one who is unbaptized salvation that they would then contradict the words of Our Lord? Even Our Lord does not say one who is unbaptized goes to hell - only that unless they are baptized, that "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".

For the life of me I can hardly comprehend how folks continue to defend what TRENT DID NOT SAY.

I fail to understand how the magisterial acts of Trent are the only ones that matter.  Just because it didn't define or teach more explicitly about BoD does not prevent later Pontiffs or councils from doing so.  We ought not to read Trent in a vacuum, which is what you appear to do.  You disregard the teaching of Popes St. Pius V and Bl. Pius IX in favor of your own private interpretation of Trent, which is contrary to a nearly unanimous consent of theologians, both before and after that council.  How is it that you and you alone know better than centuries' worth of Catholic theological experts (whose works were approved by Rome and which taught countless seminarians), who taught in Pontifical universities?  Let's not forget the sainted Pontiffs and Doctors you contradict.

"The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith" -- Condemned (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, 22).

This aptly describes your attitude towards the teaching of the Magisterium.

Finally, there are quite a few verses where our Lord promises salvation to those who love Him (cf. Matt. X; John XIV).  Scriptorium has already discussed absolute and relative necessity, but it does not appear that you have addressed that long-held distinction used by Catholic theologians.
Reply
On a second thought, can't God furnish His elect with the sacrament of baptism? God can certainly provide for it.

It seems easier to consider it thus than to contemplate on loopholes that invariably arrive at the distressing thought of Muslims and Jews being saved in their religions without baptism and faith.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 01:49 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: On a second thought, can't God furnish His elect with the sacrament of baptism? God can certainly provide for it.

It seems easier to consider it thus than to contemplate on loopholes that invariably arrive at the distressing thought of Muslims and Jews being saved in their religions without baptism and faith.
God can do anything, but we do not know His ways other than what He provides us in Church teaching.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 01:49 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: On a second thought, can't God furnish His elect with the sacrament of baptism? God can certainly provide for it.

It seems easier to consider it thus than to contemplate on loopholes that invariably arrive at the distressing thought of Muslims and Jews being saved in their religions without baptism and faith.

I do not rule out that God can -- or even does -- somehow baptize His elect, even unbeknownst to those nearby the dying man.  On the other hand, I disagree that there are loopholes with BoD because divine faith is absolutely necessary for salvation, and no one at all goes to Heaven without that virtue, as even Suprema Haec Sacra explained.

"The justification of an adult is not possible without Faith. (De fide.)" (Ott)

A papal statement quite pertinent to our discussion of the necessity of dying in the state of grace:

"Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open" (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, 29 October 1951).
Reply
Loopholes in the sense that "water" in John 3:5 has to be explained away as a relative necessity. Not that such principle is in itself foreign to the interpration of Scripture, of course. Now, I'm not saying that BoD invariably leads to those distressing opinions about Jews and Muslims being saved in their religions, sometimes without even knowing it, but the fact remains that such opinions were common even before the Council and that all men who held them, also (and naturally) believed in BoD.

I always remember St. Thomas conjecturing something along the lines of God sending an angel to preach and baptise one of his elect that is lost somewhere in the jungle before missionaries could arrive at the spot. That seems to be the most correct interpretation of extraordinary circumstances: God providing all that is necessary to the elect, including baptism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)